Madras High Court
WP/42688/2026 of RAKSHANA SPINTEX Vs the assistant commissioner (ST) on 15 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 42688 of 2026
and WMP Nos.47977 and 47985 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012426092026}
Rakshana Spintex
Rep by its Proprietor - Mr Gope Athiyannan 3/180-1, Sanyasipatti, Sankari West, Salem, Tamil Nadu - 637 303
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Sankari Assessment Circle
RDO Office Building Tiruchengode Road
Sankari - 637 301
2. The Deputy Commissioner ST Namakkal
Old Court Building BSNL Opp Mohanur Road Thillaipuram Namakkal DT
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order dated 28.08.2024 bearing Reference No.
ZD330824253085F in GSTIN 33AJVPG0893R1ZC passed by the 1st Respondent for the year 2019-2020, and the consequential attachment notice in Form GST DRC-16 dated 31.07.2026 in GSTIN 33AJVPG0893R1ZC issued by the 2nd respondent, and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms. Vaani Sreekant Iyer
For Respondent(s):
Ms. Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran
Additional Government Pleader (T)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the first respondent and the consequential attachment notice dated 31.07.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. Ms. Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader (T) takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4. Further, she would submit that the petitioner is voluntarily willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. To that effect, she has also made an endorsement in the Court bundle. Hence, she requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the first respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, she has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, she requested this Court to remit the matter back to the first respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
8. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, despite the fact that there is no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only amount to fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
9. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there has been a lack of effort in applying the available opportunities to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.
10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the first respondent and the consequential attachment notice dated 31.07.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent are set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner pays 25% of disputed tax amount to the first respondent within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned orders will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount. In the event, any amount is already recovered or deposited, the petitioner is granted liberty to adjust the said amount while making payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the first respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
(iv) Considering the fact that the impugned orders itself have been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner, cannot survive any longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the concerned Bank is directed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon proof of payment of the said amount. The Bank shall intimate the same to the respondent authority.
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. W.M.P.No.47977 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of the original impugned orders, are allowed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.47985 of 2026 is also closed. 15-10-2026 Asi To
1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Sankari Assessment Circle RDO Office Building Tiruchengode Road Sankari - 637 301
2. The Deputy Commissioner ST Namakkal Old Court Building BSNL Opp. Mohanur Road Thillaipuram Namakkal DT.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. Asi WP No. 42688 of 2026 and WMP Nos.47977 and 47985 of 2026 15-10-2026